If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Marriage equality and the parties in power

[Blog]

Minnesota is on the verge of officially becoming the 12th state to recognize marriage equality by law. The eleven that are, as of 05.09.2013, official: all six New England states — Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont — along with Delaware, Iowa, Maryland, New York, and Washington. (Add to them the non-state District of Columbia.)

Of these eleven established states, all of them attained marriage equality under Democratic governors with the exception of Maine. That milestone in the most northeastern state was achieved through a popular vote, statewide, in the 2012 elections. In the case of Iowa, going back to 2009, it was also under a Democratic governor (as the state is now governed by a Republican).

The common denominator is that these are blue presidential states, leaving the only ones competitive (when Republicans win the presidency) as Ia. and N.H. (When Democrats win the presidency, Ia. and N.H. carry.)

In 2012, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie vetoed passage, from the state legislatures, of a bill allowing same-sex couples to marry. (He's going to win re-election this year in part due to his role in relief from Hurricane Sandy.) I, frankly, get the feeling Chris Christie is the type of Republican who doesn't give a shit whether gays can marry … but that he did it for political-party purposes.

I never liked putting up people's civil rights to a vote. But it was remarkable with what happened in 2012 in the states of Me., Md., and Wash. The movement following in a host of additional states, including this latest with Minn., is remarkable.

I don't live in any of these states. I reside in Mich. And I do not trust Gov. Snyder and the Republican legislatures in Mich. For numerous reasons. And yet I want Mich., the No. 9-ranked state in population (Georgia recently overtook it for No. 8), to join the pack sooner rather than later. This makes me believe one or two things would have to happen over the next couple years: 1) Get marriage equality on the general-election ballot for 2014 (the U.S. Senate race, which will become open due to retirement of Carl Levin, will likely end up a Democratic hold); 2) Get Gov. Snyder unseated by his Democratic challenger.

I tend to think, with other states of such status, N.J.'s Chris Christie would bend to pressure if he were faced with it. And I can't say anything specific with the residents of that state of N.J. on marriage equality. Hell, I can't say too much with my own (though polling, in recent months, revealed that a majority of Mich.'s electorate are supportive), other than my disgust over their 2004 vote.

After Minnesota, I think the next three states to come up with full recognition of same-sex partners having the right to marry will come from California, Illinois, and Oregon. The reason why Michigan and Pennsylvania, to name two states, have Republican governors is because the majority of states have their gubernatorial elections in midterm election years. And these two have a long-running pattern of electing governors belonging to the party opposite an incumbent president of the United States. So, too, does the bellwether state of New Mexico, along with the former bellwether state of Tennessee, and the red presidential base states of Arizona, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.

This would be happening even more rapidly if the voters in these blue presidential base states were more conscious of the party holding the governorship. That it actually matters.

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Gay rights, like civil rights, has been very much a Democratic Party reform.

Deeply red states would still prohibit interracial marriage, if they had not been forced into reform by the Supreme Court's 1967 decision in Loving vs. Virginia.

Staunchly Republican states will never enjoy gay rights. Gays in red states must learn to accept an inferior status - or move.

You shouldn't think never. That is an incorrect reading on history. And last year, during election season, you were writing here about your belief that a combination of Maine, Maryland and Washington would not pass their ballot proposals allowing for same-sex couples to get married.

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Were it not for the Civil War, we would have slavery still in the American south.

Originally Posted by CoolBlue71

And last year, during election season, you were writing here about your belief that a combination of Maine, Maryland and Washington would not pass their ballot proposals allowing for same-sex couples to get married.

That is true. But Maine, Maryland and Washington are not red states. I was confident that these areas would eventually support gay rights, but it has happened more quickly than I believed.

Barring some intervention at the federal level, the deeply Republican parts of America are going to have to wait a century or two for gay equality.

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

One has to keep in mind in Rhode Island the Democrats in charge of the Senate,Judicary committee and the House were all opposed to marriage equality based on their religious beliefs.
Teresa Paiva Weed,the president of the Senate,did everything she could to delay marriage equality in RI and in Illinois despite the supermajority many Democrats can't seem to seperate the fact this country isn't a theocracy either.
Having said all that,if you want marriage equality,having Democrats makes the difference in many of these states. No Republican governor will sign on for marriage equality.

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

I just returned from a vacation, out of my home state, that included being away while the following was reported. So, I decided to attach it to this thread I had created a few weeks ago. It is an update on potential movement to marriage equality in my home state of Michigan.

LANSING (AP) — With more than half of voters supporting a repeal of Michigan’s gay marriage ban, advocates say it’s not a matter of if — but when — same-sex marriage is legal in the state.

How soon?

Gay rights activists plan a 2016 ballot drive to overturn the 2004 constitutional ban approved by voters. Democratic senators last week introduced legislation to put the gay marriage question to voters in 2014, but odds of it passing a Republican-controlled Legislature are slim.

“We want to go to the ballot, win and make it a sustainable win that is an indication of a climate change in Michigan,” said Emily Dievendorf, managing director of Equality Michigan, a statewide gay rights organization.

She estimated needing to raise $12 million for a ballot initiative in 2016, a presidential election year when the cause could be helped by higher Democratic voter turnout, particularly among young voters. The time until then will be used to raise funds for the signature gathering, push passage of bills prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians — supported by nearly seven in 10 voters — and educate the public.

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Arizona wants to have a vote next year but I would honestly wait until 2016 in places like MI (unless the lawsuit there succeeds),OH and AZ,even Oregon.
There will be higher Democratic voter turnouts in those years then next year,in which the older,more bigoted crowd will be coming out to vote.
Just the same,I STILL don't like putting our rights up to a vote.

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Originally Posted by T-Rexx

Gay rights, like civil rights, has been very much a Democratic Party reform.

One comment to the contrary:

Dwight Eisenhower

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Just a note: it isn't really marriage equality, it's just monogamy equality.

Or serial monogamy equality, anyway.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

I've always hated the "the new millennium doesn't start until 2001" crowd...

You don't care for truth in thinking?

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

I believe pedantic nit-picking makes for less truthful thinking actually. Might sound like a paradox but it's served me well as a guiding principle. Sometimes (often) the spirit of a concept is more important and with far greater impact than the pedantic facts that comprise it. The 2000 thing was a huge example of this. I'll be happy to elaborate if you'd like.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

I've always hated the "the new millennium doesn't start until 2001" crowd...

The real millennium started in 2001.

The odometric millennium started in 2000...

"Some people without brains do an awful lot of talking." -The Scarecrow, WIZARD OF OZ, 1939Betsy DeVos, Secretary of Education, to under-performing schools: DROP DEAD.Make, for a man, a fire - and he'll be warm for a few hours. Set a man afire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.Satire is meant to ridicule power. If you are laughing at people who are hurting, it's not satire, it's bullying. - Terry Pratchett

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

I believe pedantic nit-picking makes for less truthful thinking actually. Might sound like a paradox but it's served me well as a guiding principle. Sometimes (often) the spirit of a concept is more important and with far greater impact than the pedantic facts that comprise it. The 2000 thing was a huge example of this. I'll be happy to elaborate if you'd like.

Pretending that monogamy equality is marriage equality is just a way to continue the same discriminatory system that exists. I see nothing pedantic about persecuting people for being different, which is what that power structure we have now does.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Ok, it seems I have to explain...

1. On the subject of the 2000/2001 argument, Douglas Adams actually explained it great in an essay once. The millenial celebrations were about a symbol. The end of an era and the beginning of another. A change of all four digits is dramatic. Adding a 1 to the number is not. People celebrate the symbol, and not the technicality, because technicalities have no power. And as the difference between 2000 and 2001 has no practical impact on anyone's life, the pedantic crowd was just being obnoxious for absolutely no reason.

2. As for marriage equality, it is also a symbol. It's the symbol of an oppressed minority that wants their love to be recognized. Words have power. "Marriage equality" is a massive, resonating phrase. "Adding same-sex monogamous couples to the existing heterosexual structure" isn't. It has no power. People don't rise to fight for it, it doesn't bring tears in anyone's eyes.

3. Marriage in modern society is designed for the couple unit. While marriage may have encompassed other units in the ancient past, for most of history it has been based around that unit, even when outsiders were attached to it (in the form of mistresses, concubines, harems etc.). The few cultures that still have polygamous marriage are still entirely dominated by men and women are property. Meanwhile, the couple unit itself has established itself through tens of thousands of years, with or without marriage. And it's only natural - it's obviously the most stable one, as it operates on the minimal number of people higher than ONE. Adding a single other person introduces great potential for instability, which is the reason why polygamists are rare and don't have an actual strong movement - because while there's absolutely nothing wrong with polygamy, it takes a particular type of personality which is rare. For polygamy to be added to marriage, it would require not a minor tweaking of the law (like gay marriage would), but an entirely new set of laws.

4. The usual argument of how the rights of marriage should be given to everyone and the institution done away with, is laughable to me. First of all, not all cultures in the world (or even the west) are religion-centered. Where I come from, marriage barely gives any special rights, and most people don't bother with the religious side of it. But it's - wait for it - a symbol. You don't just remove a symbol that means so much to so many people. And when it comes to the rights, I think it's perfectly legitimate for the government to reward the forming of units that benefit society. The couple unit adds stability to society, and the LGBT argument is that our units have the exact same effect. When other types of unites can make the same argument, they should be welcome to join in this institution. In the mean time, pretending that it's some evil heteronormative monogamous dogma is failing to actually address what marriage does for society.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Symbols have this interesting power to lie, claiming things they don't include. "Marriage equality" is such a symbol, because what's really happening is really just an expansion of an existing structure of oppression. By doing so, it provides fuel to extend the oppression when other try to get equality: people will say, "We already have marriage equality; we did that years ago!"

In other words, the use of that phrase is just setting society up to use the same argument people here have used when "gay marriage" is discussed: "Gays can already get married, just like anyone else".

Absolute monarchy had established itself over time, too. What's established over time is irrelevant if it's a system of oppression. I know people who want multiple marriages, but the "marriage equality" crowd isn't interested in them. That merely makes the "marriage equality" crowd just another batch of oppressors, who want to be included -- in today's terminology -- as "first class citizens", but have no concern that everyone be considered a first-class citizen, so long as they get that status.

What your argument boils down to is that oppression is okay so long as the government can say it provides stability. That's been the thinking of authoritarians all through history -- the thinking of those who don't really believe in liberty, just in getting for themselves.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

You use the word oppression, yet I don't see how marriage "oppresses" anyone. It certainly never oppressed gay people, even when they weren't allowed to engage in it. This is poisonous terminology and I don't understand it.

And I envy you your diverse friends. I don't know ANYONE who wants to be in a non-traditional marriage. I know plenty of folks who just don't wanna get married. And you completely ignored the whole point of why marriage rewards the couple unit, of course, as well as most of my post in general.

Why are you focused on demonizing marriage?

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

Pretending that monogamy equality is marriage equality is just a way to continue the same discriminatory system that exists. I see nothing pedantic about persecuting people for being different, which is what that power structure we have now does.

As much as we can dismiss fear mongering about the "redefinition of marriage," the word does have a definition which is not all-encompassing. In order to show that the system is discriminatory, one has to show that a given relationship does actually fit within the definition of marriage but is excluded. I believe gay people have met that burden, both in theory and practice. It is possible that other people, for example polyamorists, will be able to meet it as well, and introduce different kinds of relationships again. But it is very different to say "it is possible" and "they've met the test already."

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

You use the word oppression, yet I don't see how marriage "oppresses" anyone. It certainly never oppressed gay people, even when they weren't allowed to engage in it. This is poisonous terminology and I don't understand it.

And I envy you your diverse friends. I don't know ANYONE who wants to be in a non-traditional marriage. I know plenty of folks who just don't wanna get married. And you completely ignored the whole point of why marriage rewards the couple unit, of course, as well as most of my post in general.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Originally Posted by bankside

As much as we can dismiss fear mongering about the "redefinition of marriage," the word does have a definition which is not all-encompassing. In order to show that the system is discriminatory, one has to show that a given relationship does actually fit within the definition of marriage but is excluded. I believe gay people have met that burden, both in theory and practice. It is possible that other people, for example polyamorists, will be able to meet it as well, and introduce different kinds of relationships again. But it is very different to say "it is possible" and "they've met the test already."

LOL

You justify an oppressive system by letting the system define the terms and say that there's no discrimination so long as people don't fit the terms. That's an argument the Mormons and others (Scalia) would love for the marriage issue -- it boils down to "There's no discrimination because we say there isn't".

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

LOL

You justify an oppressive system by letting the system define the terms and say that there's no discrimination so long as people don't fit the terms. That's an argument the Mormons and others (Scalia) would love for the marriage issue -- it boils down to "There's no discrimination because we say there isn't".

Utterly false. There is no discrimination against polygamists because marriage is not designed to ever include them without a complete rewriting of the law. The case with LGBT couples is NOT the same because it takes almost no effort to include us in the existing structure. For your repeated use of the word "oppression", look at my previous post.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Yet you utterly failed in explaining how the current marriage structure is oppressive OR why it should involve units that are not proven to benefit society. Until you address those, you have nothing.

Only because you close your eyes.

Can everyone get married in whatever form they wish? No. That's oppression.

Your position rests on the supposition that there is something called "society" that has the right to dictate to people how their lives are to go. That's the exact same position Michelle Bachmann holds. The foundation of that supposition is that human beings are not free, that we do not actually have rights.

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

Utterly false. There is no discrimination against polygamists because marriage is not designed to ever include them without a complete rewriting of the law. The case with LGBT couples is NOT the same because it takes almost no effort to include us in the existing structure. For your repeated use of the word "oppression", look at my previous post.

For the state to define marriage is a violation of freedom of association and equal treatment before the law. Any such system of law is anti-human and ought to be just thrown out.

By your definition, there is no discrimination against gays, and SCOTUS should unanimously rule to uphold Proposition 8 and DOMA.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Can everyone get married in whatever form they wish? No. That's oppression.

I can't become an astronaut either, or work at Starbucks. Is that oppression? Your argument is ridiculous.

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

Your position rests on the supposition that there is something called "society" that has the right to dictate to people how their lives are to go. That's the exact same position Michelle Bachmann holds. The foundation of that supposition is that human beings are not free, that we do not actually have rights.

You say it like I'll scream murder. You are correct, that is EXACTLY what I think. But just like with your absurd notion of "government as an enemy", you go about it wrong here too. Society exists and it has the right to dictate to people how their lives are to go. That's because society IS the people. It is a structure that has evolved naturally from the need of people to interact with each other under a set of rules that everyone follows. Therefore if something doesn't work or the people aren't happy with it, they have the power to change society. As the gay rights movement is doing at the moment. I know you like to believe in some lofty abstract concept of self-ownership and inborn rights and such, but we don't live in lofty abstract concept world, we live in practical reality. And whether you will say rights exist in vacuum and are either recognized or not, OR that rights are determined by society, to me it's the exact same thing, and the endgame is the same.

For the state to define marriage is a violation of freedom of association and equal treatment before the law. Any such system of law is anti-human and ought to be just thrown out.

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

By your definition, there is no discrimination against gays, and SCOTUS should unanimously rule to uphold Proposition 8 and DOMA.

There is discrimination exactly because there is no stable logical reason for us to be excluded from marriage. There are numerous ones for polygamists to be excluded. We have had decades of making our case and fighting for it. They haven't even formed a movement. Ultimately, I believe it is right and just to give gays the right to marry. But we won't win because it's right and just. We will win because we have fought and have earned that win. That's how the world works - not through preaching of some inalienable rights that come from conception and exist simply "because".

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

I can't become an astronaut either, or work at Starbucks. Is that oppression? Your argument is ridiculous.

Those don't involve basic human rights.

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

You say it like I'll scream murder. You are correct, that is EXACTLY what I think. But just like with your absurd notion of "government as an enemy", you go about it wrong here too. Society exists and it has the right to dictate to people how their lives are to go. That's because society IS the people. It is a structure that has evolved naturally from the need of people to interact with each other under a set of rules that everyone follows. Therefore if something doesn't work or the people aren't happy with it, they have the power to change society. As the gay rights movement is doing at the moment. I know you like to believe in some lofty abstract concept of self-ownership and inborn rights and such, but we don't live in lofty abstract concept world, we live in practical reality. And whether you will say rights exist in vacuum and are either recognized or not, OR that rights are determined by society, to me it's the exact same thing, and the endgame is the same.

By your argument, government can tell us what to do with our bodies. You're arguing against human rights, and for tyranny. That yours is the tyranny of the majority makes no difference.

Originally Posted by Rolyo85

There is discrimination exactly because there is no stable logical reason for us to be excluded from marriage. There are numerous ones for polygamists to be excluded. We have had decades of making our case and fighting for it. They haven't even formed a movement. Ultimately, I believe it is right and just to give gays the right to marry. But we won't win because it's right and just. We will win because we have fought and have earned that win. That's how the world works - not through preaching of some inalienable rights that come from conception and exist simply "because".

There are NO arguments for polygamists or anyone else to be excluded from marriage: people have the right of freedom of association, and the state has no authority to discriminate on the basis of associations.

Tiny minorities shouldn't have to fight for their rights -- that they do is an indication that society prefers tyranny... something you demonstrate by arguing for it.

I'll be waiting for you to be consistent and tell people they should be quiet about gays being stoned or even burned alive in Muslim countries, because the majority approves.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

1. Marriage doesn't involve basic human rights either. Everyone has access to it (like the socons like to remind us), and any redefinition is a matter of civil movements.

2. Every time you use the "by your argument" construct and then make up some outrageous claim and try to stick it to what I've said, you're embarrassing yourself. How many time must I repeat that rights are what we make them? Women fought for their rights, black people fought for their rights, gays fight for their rights. I am not arguing for tyranny, just telling you how rights happen. If you don't like it, go live alone in the desert and self-own as much as you like.

3. I gave you arguments about polygamists being excluded from marriage. You did not address those. People can associate all they like. Government isn't discriminating against anyone by not giving that association benefits. And if they believe they do deserve said benefits and that changing the laws to accommodate poly-marriages would be beneficial to society, they are welcome to make the case, as have interracial and gay couples. Just because the institution of marriage is exclusive, doesn't make it meaningless or oppressive and you are YET to give any notion as to why you used that word to begin with. I notice you didn't use it in your last post.

4. Tiny minorities are tiny for a reason. There has to be a rule that everyone abides by. You are arguing for anarchy - a system where everything is allowed and everything is equal. Such system has never existed in the history of humankind and that is the biggest argument against it, more or less.

5. That's not consistency, you are asking me to mold my argument to your oversimplified warped idea of what my argument is. I am not going to do that, instead I'll challenge you to rise to it and actually address it. You live in a fantasy world in which "rights" are something written in the heart of a star, and encoded in our DNA. I know it's a nice little fantasy, but it's not how the real world works.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

1. Marriage doesn't involve basic human rights either. Everyone has access to it (like the socons like to remind us), and any redefinition is a matter of civil movements.

2. Every time you use the "by your argument" construct and then make up some outrageous claim and try to stick it to what I've said, you're embarrassing yourself. How many time must I repeat that rights are what we make them? Women fought for their rights, black people fought for their rights, gays fight for their rights. I am not arguing for tyranny, just telling you how rights happen. If you don't like it, go live alone in the desert and self-own as much as you like.

3. I gave you arguments about polygamists being excluded from marriage. You did not address those. People can associate all they like. Government isn't discriminating against anyone by not giving that association benefits. And if they believe they do deserve said benefits and that changing the laws to accommodate poly-marriages would be beneficial to society, they are welcome to make the case, as have interracial and gay couples. Just because the institution of marriage is exclusive, doesn't make it meaningless or oppressive and you are YET to give any notion as to why you used that word to begin with. I notice you didn't use it in your last post.

4. Tiny minorities are tiny for a reason. There has to be a rule that everyone abides by. You are arguing for anarchy - a system where everything is allowed and everything is equal. Such system has never existed in the history of humankind and that is the biggest argument against it, more or less.

5. That's not consistency, you are asking me to mold my argument to your oversimplified warped idea of what my argument is. I am not going to do that, instead I'll challenge you to rise to it and actually address it. You live in a fantasy world in which "rights" are something written in the heart of a star, and encoded in our DNA. I know it's a nice little fantasy, but it's not how the real world works.

To give preference or benefits to one form of association over another is discrimination -- and that's what you advocate... again.

Gays are a minority. You're saying that because someone is a minority, they don't have any rights unless the majority gets around to bothering with tossing them something. You're advocating the dictionary definition of tyranny of the majority. It's the same view that justified slavery and opposed the civil rights movement.

All your arguments against my points so far consist of ignoring the foundation behind your assertions.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

LOL

You justify an oppressive system by letting the system define the terms and say that there's no discrimination so long as people don't fit the terms. That's an argument the Mormons and others (Scalia) would love for the marriage issue -- it boils down to "There's no discrimination because we say there isn't".

Not even remotely close. You're welcome to define the terms if you can do so convincingly. Talking about "oppression" doesn't really get you off with a racing start but give it a go.

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Not even remotely close. You're welcome to define the terms if you can do so convincingly. Talking about "oppression" doesn't really get you off with a racing start but give it a go.

No, it's exactly what you argued: that the people in power can define terms as they wish, and unless other people can prove that what they're doing fits in the definition the PTBs made, there's no discrimination.

Your position is common. It boils down to the belief that people are actually cattle, basically the property of whoever's in power.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

To give preference or benefits to one form of association over another is discrimination -- and that's what you advocate... again.

Gays are a minority. You're saying that because someone is a minority, they don't have any rights unless the majority gets around to bothering with tossing them something. You're advocating the dictionary definition of tyranny of the majority. It's the same view that justified slavery and opposed the civil rights movement.

All your arguments against my points so far consist of ignoring the foundation behind your assertions.

Yes, that is what I advocate. Not all forms of association benefit society, so society gives preference or benefits to those that have proven that they do. Society does not OWE preference or benefits to anyone, so it is free to give those to whoever it chooses. That's not oppression.

Gays are a huge, and vocal minority. The minority only has the rights that the majority gives it, because that's how the world operates. You can play the outrage track on loop all you want, it doesn't change how reality works. Yet minorities have the power to influence the majority and receive any right it can fight for. That is how social change has been enacted since Mesopotamia, and so I am thoroughly amazed that you are challenging me as if I just made it up. Yes, this is tyranny of the majority. It's also - again - the world we live in. I am not advocating for or against it, I just prefer to work with it rather than yell at windmills.

Your points are based in some ideology that has no real bearing on the world you inhabit. I am not ignoring the foundation behind my assertions. YOU are trying to make me sound like I am DEFENDING it.

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

No, it's exactly what you argued: that the people in power can define terms as they wish, and unless other people can prove that what they're doing fits in the definition the PTBs made, there's no discrimination.

Your position is common. It boils down to the belief that people are actually cattle, basically the property of whoever's in power.

Indeed. The people in power can and DO define terms as they wish. Sometimes that's discrimination and sometimes it's not. Whether it is or isn't though, the way to prove it is discrimination is by making a case for it. Women did. Black people did. Now gays do.

This position might be common, but it is also perceptive. While you use broad offensive terms like "oppression" and "cattle", we are AWARE. What have YOU done lately in keeping with your lofty ideals, other than talking? Or do you have an example of an existing society that works in keeping with your principles?

That we are capable only of being what we are, remains our unforgivable sin.
- Gene Wolfe

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Originally Posted by Kulindahr

No, it's exactly what you argued: that the people in power can define terms as they wish, and unless other people can prove that what they're doing fits in the definition the PTBs made, there's no discrimination.

Your position is common. It boils down to the belief that people are actually cattle, basically the property of whoever's in power.

Still waiting for you to provide an alternate definition of marriage than "two consenting adults in an intimate sexual and social relationship providing mutual benefit and benefit to the rest of their community."

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

And a separate post, because so far you conveniently skip my repeatedly asked question:

WHY DID YOU USE THE WORD "OPPRESSION" SEVERAL TIMES? WHY DID YOU STOP USING IT? HOW DO YOU DEFINE IT AND WHY DID YOU THINK IT APPROPRIATE IN THIS CONTEXT?

I used the word oppression because it describes what you believe in at root: that those with power can do as they please.

By your definition, Pol Pot and Idi Amin were just as moral as Mandela or Martin Luther King.

Originally Posted by bankside

Still waiting for you to provide an alternate definition of marriage than "two consenting adults in an intimate sexual and social relationship providing mutual benefit and benefit to the rest of their community."

Get it yet? Marriage is whatever people who wish to join their lives together decide it is.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Ahh good. Just trying to get from you whether you see a difference between loving relationships and, say, the local canasta club down at the community league. I see not; it's all just Freedom of Association™ to you.

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

Actually no, Kuli, you used the word oppression SPECIFICALLY in the context of MARRIAGE. That was WAY before we established I support tyranny and hate minorities.

Yes -- because the system of marriage was established to benefit the rich and bigoted, and all that gays are really fighting for is to be included in the group of those with the privileges.

"Thirty-one* states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "

Re: Marriage equality and the parties in power

If you boil the word marriage down to it's most basic elements, it is a commitment to each of the other parties in the relationship.

Marriage: mar·riage [mar-ij] noun
1. a legally, religiously, or socially sanctioned union of persons who commit to one another, forming a familial and economic bond: Anthropologists say that some type of marriage has been found in every society, past and present.

2. a. the social institution under which a man and woman establish their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc.
b. a similar institution involving partners of the same gender, as in gay marriage; same-sex marriage .

3. the state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: They have a happy marriage. Synonyms: matrimony. Antonyms: single life, bachelorhood, spinsterhood, singleness.

4. the legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: to officiate at a marriage. Synonyms: nuptials, marriage ceremony, wedding. Antonyms: divorce, annulment.

5. a relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a husband and wife, without legal sanction: trial marriage.

There is a society that I am involved in where I am a minister and I can perform a marriage between any parties I find to be committed to each other. The marriage I perform is recognized by that society. If you want your marriage to be recognized by society at large, there are expectations that society places upon the concept of marriage. These expectations form the basis of a legal marriage. Currently in the majority of the United States and some other countries, marriage is limited to a union between one man and one woman. Archaic, yes. Narrow focused, yes. Legal, yes. It remains legal until someone says that "Hey, this isn't right. This isn't fair, and we need to change this". This person then builds a case, builds a following, and makes things change by compromise, by education, or by force. When the constitution was written, all men were created equal, and that was because at that tie, All men were White, landowners, or politicians. Women had to fight to become equal, African Americans fought to become equal. Native Americans fought, and some say are still fighting, to become equal. Currently, gays and lesbians are fighting for equality. Freedoms are not free, all of them have come at a price.